I still don't get this. The object is supposed to be 14 billion lightyears away. About the time it is theorized our universe came to existence by the means of bing bang.
What, our solar system traveled faster than light to get 14 billion lightyears away from this one, in.. 14 billion years ?
Or was the big bang really BIG , banging matter into existence all over todays known universe(seems to contradict a bit with the ever expanding universe, unless it expands faster than the speed of light, relatively speaking) ?
Where's your imagination ? In the hundreds of thousands, or rather millions of years it takes earth to be cooked like Venus, we'd have plenty of time constructing and growing plants altering the martian atmosphere to be more friendly. Denser atmosphere will mean higher temperature. With enough power you'd transport and melt the frozen water and CO2, to which our previously made plants can feed on, from the martian poles. If that's not enough we can transport water from earth, find some suitable ice asteroids to crash onto the surface. Options are many. It just takes *time*, and some improved technology we hopfully have developed in the next few hundred years.
Some people seems to only see problems. Others see opportunities.
THe first obvious thing is that with a brute force attack you have to check 2^128 keys if you got a 128 bit key. For two 64 bit keys, you need to check 2^64 + 2^64 keys. That's a hell of a lot less than 2^128.
(there's other more valid reasons as to why it's weaker:)
Re:"lacks some graphical refinement"
on
Driving Plan 9
·
· Score: 1
Yes - this appears to be the environments most users are settlet in, and most users (here) are familiar with and comparing against. This means it becomes the way it's been done("should be") for these users. And the metaphor it centers about is much older than this btw. It's just being polished and refined, and will likely be so for the next years. Drop shadows, wobbeling transparent windows, scalable icons - adds little to the value of getting work done for users. (sure, it's great for sales persons and the coolness factor to capture users)
Sure, you just need the overhead (in java) of loading policies in memory for all your restrictions. And how do I acces the objects from whatever other language easily ? being able to write netcat in 7 lines of shell script is nice. So is every other application that can naturally deal with files.
With ruby/java/ you're restricted to "cool" things from within that language and environment only. I'm sure that's great when you're a -language zealot. Why don't you jump to, say Common Lisp ? It can, from my experience, do most things other language can, not the least OO features - only "better". But it too is a restricted environment in itself, so you probably won't touch it, just as I won't touch your OO centric language.
Re:"lacks some graphical refinement"
on
Driving Plan 9
·
· Score: 1
Yeah, they don't look like KDE or XP scrollbars. Oh noes - Therefore they are crap. Not to mention the look - a scrollbar that looks different cannot possibly be useful.
Wobbeling,translucent windows seems absent. So does shiny colors(only colors pleasent on the eyes for long working sessions), Zoomable icons, taskbars, the X button you accidentally click twice a day.
Couple this with a person that has unquestionable faith it The Way It's Always Been Done (aka. this is how osx/xp/gnome/kde works) and hasn't even spent a day learning different ways - we have a candidate for Research,Development and Progress. Congratulation.
Re:Zzzzzzz.....
on
Driving Plan 9
·
· Score: 5, Informative
>The "everything is a file" metaphor of Unix was revolutionary at the time, and Plan 9 taking it a little further really does little to advance the state of the art.
Sorry, this is where you're wrong. Make the socket interface a filesystem, and all you do is mount a fileserver over that, to create a socks proxy/http proxy/whatever. All apps get the capability of doing networking over a proxy, transparently - no need for using libs or prelinking hacks that usually don't work.
Have the ability to easily create fileservers in userspace, and create an mail filesystem that can handle imap/pop/local mboxes etc. Mail clients doesn't need to reimplement your favorite mail protocol in yet another broken and incompatible way, or adhere to 4 different libraries with 4 different concepts. Just read/write files and have the one fileserver do the job.
Sharing files AND resources becomes easy too. Want to play sound on another computer ? import hostname:/dev/audio/dev
Having all resources being files, you get a standard way of access control (add ACLs if you really need to), couple it with private namespaces, and you don't need the umpten hacks like freebsd jails, chroots, selinux, systrace, etc. Just use chmod/chown and set up a filesystem namespace only containing the resources (resources in this case is anything you request from the OS - networking interface, audio device, screen display, authentication privileges, or most other of the 400 syscalls or ioctls you might want to restrict access to in a read/change on traditional unixes.
Interesting reads.
on
Driving Plan 9
·
· Score: 2, Informative
The prior plans were unix. (up to about 8th edition, where they decided to try something new instead of polishing the old turd) (unfortunatly that's what the current unixes are based on )
I have to say YUCK to your mockup. The scrollbars looks alien. The original acme - http://cm.bell-labs.com/plan9/img/screenshot.gif does it right. (Ok, that gif isn't entirely representative beeing 8bit colors)
>FreeBSD could still beat Linux to the desktop just because it's standardised on >what comes with it, and you could release packages for it a lot more easily. Right , until we start seeing more distributions of/based on FreeBSD. Like say DesktopPC.
There is already http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsv wg-sctpsocket-12.txt which defines a socket API for sctp use. (most implementation implements this) If you want to use sctp just like TCP (not leveraging many of the other sctp features) you just change the last argument of the socket(2) call to IPPROTO_SCTP.
yes. Wtf are you babbeling about ? Multihoming is for connecting to one host/entity that has interfaces on several networks. You don't normally find hosts with enough legs it warrants your "size of the planet" routing table. Heartbeats can be turned off, but they make sense for many applications anyway.
''Why I hate frameworks'' is a fun and good read.
Reflects my experience too with these frameworks that's suppsoed to make things
easier for you. Now, they have alot of easy to do stuff, it's just that about 95% of that is a total waste of time, doesn't help you with your ultimate solution, and you'll have to do it over again for the almost-compatible release due next month.
So do Norway - And I tell you, consumers here pay among the highest price in the world for oil products. We'd much rather sell the oil and use cheap alternative energy sources.
Re:Perhaps they can make it possible to configure
on
MythTV 0.19 Released
·
· Score: 1
>See how equally ridiculous it sounds the other way around? Video, sound, etc. are >all BASIC parts of the OS.
And any decent OS should auto configure these atleast to a normal working state. (which most non-windows OS really suck at, except for the handful of lucky guys that is now going to reply)
I don't use twm, nor do I use emacs, or otherwise run a single whatever window.
Eycandy can't always be "disabled". You have toolkits incorporating shadow/hover features. You have animated icons here and there. Applications starts to make windows tranclucent.
Not everything is tweakable. (Well - in some desktops, particulary some that begins with a 'K'. It is, and it still has a feel of disorganizing withall these turned off)
My mere point it, why not rather spend resources enhancing user productivity, than all these "features" ?
> Will Microsoft ever get this? Why would they ? For Microsoft it's not a choice of "open up or die". What makes you think Microsoft will die if it doesn't open up ? Microsoft is growing by the day, and does not need to open up to continue. At All.
(I'm just stating these facts - I have not mentioned a word on wether I agree that they/should/ "open up")
What about those who (like me) dislikes eyecandy for the reason they serve only to distract you from the actual work at hand ?
I want to get work done in an environment that works with me, not cause distraction with all fancy smancy so called "eye-candy" which granted, are cool for about the first 3 minutes (unless you're a 15-year old fanboy, in which case everything is cool). Thereafter it just becomes silly.
I second this. We use gzip to compress searchable telecom CDRs. gzip provides a very nice speed vs compression ratio. Searching through the CDRs, decompressing the files on the fly is still IO bound on recent hardware. bzip2'ing the files placed too much load on the CPU with our current scheme.
Slashdot Mirror
You are correct. You can.
The problem is Apple doesn't allow you to,
and you have agreed to that.
I still don't get this.
.. 14 billion years ?
The object is supposed to be 14 billion lightyears away. About the time
it is theorized our universe came to existence by the means of bing bang.
What, our solar system traveled faster than light to get 14 billion lightyears
away from this one, in
Or was the big bang really BIG , banging matter into existence all over todays known
universe(seems to contradict a bit with the ever expanding universe, unless it expands
faster than the speed of light, relatively speaking) ?
Where's your imagination ?
In the hundreds of thousands, or rather millions of years it takes earth to be cooked like Venus, we'd have plenty of time constructing and growing plants altering the martian atmosphere to be more friendly.
Denser atmosphere will mean higher temperature. With enough power you'd transport and melt
the frozen water and CO2, to which our previously made plants can feed on, from the martian poles. If that's not enough we can transport water from earth, find some suitable ice asteroids to crash onto the surface.
Options are many. It just takes *time*, and some improved technology we hopfully have developed in the next few hundred years.
Some people seems to only see problems. Others see opportunities.
THe first obvious thing is that with a brute force attack you have
to check 2^128 keys if you got a 128 bit key.
For two 64 bit keys, you need to check 2^64 + 2^64 keys.
That's a hell of a lot less than 2^128.
(there's other more valid reasons as to why it's weaker:)
Yes - this appears to be the environments most users are settlet in, and most users (here) are
familiar with and comparing against. This means it becomes the way it's been done("should be") for
these users.
And the metaphor it centers about is much older than this btw.
It's just being polished and refined, and will likely be so for the next years.
Drop shadows, wobbeling transparent windows, scalable icons - adds little to the value of
getting work done for users.
(sure, it's great for sales persons and the coolness factor to capture users)
Sure, you just need the overhead (in java) of loading policies in memory for all your restrictions.
And how do I acces the objects from whatever other language easily ? being able to write
netcat in 7 lines of shell script is nice. So is every other application that can
naturally deal with files.
With ruby/java/ you're restricted to "cool" things from
within that language and environment only.
I'm sure that's great when you're a -language zealot.
Why don't you jump to, say Common Lisp ? It can, from my experience, do
most things other language can, not the least OO features - only "better".
But it too is a restricted environment in itself, so you probably won't touch it,
just as I won't touch your OO centric language.
Yeah, they don't look like KDE or XP scrollbars.
Oh noes - Therefore they are crap.
Not to mention the look - a scrollbar that looks different
cannot possibly be useful.
Wobbeling,translucent windows seems absent. So does shiny
colors(only colors pleasent on the eyes for long working sessions),
Zoomable icons, taskbars, the X button you accidentally click twice a
day.
Couple this with a person that has unquestionable faith it
The Way It's Always Been Done (aka. this is how osx/xp/gnome/kde works)
and hasn't even spent a day learning different ways - we have a candidate
for Research,Development and Progress.
Congratulation.
>The "everything is a file" metaphor of Unix was revolutionary at the time, and Plan 9 taking it a little further really does little to advance the state of the art.
/dev
Sorry, this is where you're wrong.
Make the socket interface a filesystem, and all you do is mount a fileserver over that, to create
a socks proxy/http proxy/whatever. All apps get the capability of
doing networking over a proxy, transparently - no need for using libs or
prelinking hacks that usually don't work.
Have the ability to easily create fileservers in userspace, and create an mail
filesystem that can handle imap/pop/local mboxes etc. Mail clients doesn't need
to reimplement your favorite mail protocol in yet another broken and incompatible
way, or adhere to 4 different libraries with 4 different concepts. Just read/write files and
have the one fileserver do the job.
Sharing files AND resources becomes easy too. Want to play sound on another computer ? import hostname:/dev/audio
Having all resources being files, you get a standard way of access control (add ACLs if you really need to), couple it with private
namespaces, and you don't need the umpten hacks like freebsd jails, chroots, selinux, systrace, etc. Just use chmod/chown and set up a filesystem namespace only containing the resources (resources in this case is anything you request from the OS - networking interface, audio device, screen display, authentication privileges, or most other of the 400 syscalls or ioctls you might want to restrict access to in a read/change on traditional unixes.
In addition to the Plan 9 papers, here's some nice reads:E ADYET.pdf
http://www.cs.unm.edu/~fastos/05meeting/PLAN9NOTD
http://www.collyer.net/who/geoff/9book.html
The prior plans were unix. (up to about 8th edition, where they
decided to try something new instead of polishing the old turd)
(unfortunatly that's what the current unixes are based on )
LOL.
More confusing(because of many minor irrelevant eycandy) and slower is what you mean.
I have to say YUCK to your mockup.
The scrollbars looks alien.
The original acme - http://cm.bell-labs.com/plan9/img/screenshot.gif does it right. (Ok, that gif isn't entirely representative beeing 8bit colors)
>FreeBSD could still beat Linux to the desktop just because it's standardised on
>what comes with it, and you could release packages for it a lot more easily.
Right , until we start seeing more distributions of/based on FreeBSD. Like
say DesktopPC.
He forgot This.
Slick. I want one.
There is already http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tsv wg-sctpsocket-12.txt
which defines a socket API for sctp use. (most implementation implements this)
If you want to use sctp just like TCP (not leveraging many of the other sctp features) you just change the last argument of the socket(2) call to IPPROTO_SCTP.
KAME has SCTP implementation for *BSDs
yes. Wtf are you babbeling about ?
Multihoming is for connecting to one host/entity that has interfaces on several
networks.
You don't normally find hosts with enough legs it warrants your "size of the planet" routing table.
Heartbeats can be turned off, but they make sense for many applications anyway.
''Why I hate frameworks'' is a fun and good read. Reflects my experience too with these frameworks that's suppsoed to make things easier for you. Now, they have alot of easy to do stuff, it's just that about 95% of that is a total waste of time, doesn't help you with your ultimate solution, and you'll have to do it over again for the almost-compatible release due next month.
So do Norway - And I tell you, consumers here pay among the highest
price in the world for oil products.
We'd much rather sell the oil and use cheap alternative energy sources.
http://asgaard.homelinux.org/top.txt :-(
>See how equally ridiculous it sounds the other way around? Video, sound, etc. are
>all BASIC parts of the OS.
And any decent OS should auto configure these atleast to a normal working state.
(which most non-windows OS really suck at, except for the handful of lucky guys that is now going to reply)
What's with the trolling ?
I don't use twm, nor do I use emacs, or otherwise run a single whatever window.
Eycandy can't always be "disabled". You have toolkits incorporating shadow/hover
features.
You have animated icons here and there. Applications starts to make windows tranclucent.
Not everything is tweakable. (Well - in some desktops, particulary
some that begins with a 'K'. It is, and it still has a feel of disorganizing withall these turned off)
My mere point it, why not rather spend resources enhancing user productivity, than all these "features" ?
> Will Microsoft ever get this?
/should/ "open up")
Why would they ?
For Microsoft it's not a choice of "open up or die".
What makes you think Microsoft will die if it doesn't open up ?
Microsoft is growing by the day, and does not need to open up to continue.
At All.
(I'm just stating these facts - I have not mentioned a word on wether I
agree that they
What about those who (like me) dislikes eyecandy for the reason they
serve only to distract you from the actual work at hand ?
I want to get work done in an environment that works with me, not cause distraction with all fancy smancy so called "eye-candy" which granted, are cool for about the first 3 minutes (unless you're a 15-year old fanboy, in which case everything is cool). Thereafter it just becomes silly.
I second this. We use gzip to compress searchable telecom CDRs. gzip provides a very nice
speed vs compression ratio. Searching through the CDRs, decompressing the files on the fly is still IO bound on recent hardware. bzip2'ing the files placed too much load on the CPU with our current scheme.